im slow to get the point on the one hand and blunt and direct to a fault on the other, so if you could explain the point, please?

(im working on the blunt and direct, by the way, just havent completely figured out the "better way", yet.)

i give the same response here as i gave arnold.

I thought "blunt and direct" was the better way....

Let me elaborate, but in reverse.

We deal with different kids of laws. The consequences for keeping/breaking laws depend on the nature of the law, and is closely tied to the authority who imposes it.

The speed limit is imposed by human authority. If you break it, there is no inherent penalty. The penalty is incurred only if the human authority catches you breaking it.

The law of gravity is imposed by God; without God there would be no gravity. There are ways to defy it, but there is great risk involved if the plan fails (e.g. plane crashes). But if you have a reliable way to defy gravity, many benefits may be gained.

The law of cosines is also imposed by God. One of its manifestations is the Pythagorean Theorem. There's no way to break it without making everything fall apart because it is governed by how God made the universe. If you break it, everything is broken.

God's moral law is like the law of cosines. It is not merely imposed by an external authority who can apply penalties for disregarding it. It is a fundamental expression of how God made us to function. If you function any other way, you are very broken.

Hence, when holy angels were obeying God, they were just acting in the way they were made to act. Similarly, those who have been re-created in God's image will act the way they were made to act - in harmony with God's law of love. It's not something they do, but something they are.

Like tq, I don't understand your question.

Arnold, I agree with your idea in regards to the law, that it expresses how we are to function. I have a couple of technical questions on your examples, which don't really have to do with your overall point, which I agree with, but I was still curious about.

In regards to the first example, I've used a parking "law", as ordinarily nothing bad happens if you break it, apart from an imposed penalty, except inconveniencing someone else who had a right to the parking space you're taking. However, breaking the speeding law can be dangerous, which is why the law exists in the first place. If you go to fast, you're more liable to cause an accident. So, in this sense (if you take away the tickets the cops give you) the speeding law seems to me similar to the moral law (i.e., it's given to prevent you from suffering the consequences of breaking it).

In regards to the second example, the law of gravity, that's not a law which is broken, so I had trouble following the analogy here. For example, flying doesn't break the law of gravity. I don't know what you were trying to get at here. I suppose if there were a law which said, "Don't jump off of tall buildings, without making special provisions (such as a parachute, or jumping onto something soft)" could be analogous to the moral law, in that it's describing reality, similarly to how the moral law does ("how God made the universe")

That is, did God have any other choice, than the one you articulated above, in how they made FMAs? For example, could they have made them to experience peace and happiness living in harmony with only say two-thirds of the law?

To everyone:

Sorry for posting two of the same quotes Rosangela posted immediately after she posted them. For some reason I didn't see her post.

His dislike and complaints were, of course, baseless and unfounded. Thus, there was/is nothing right or rationale about it. The law, or so he thought, stood as a barrier between him and his unholy desires, namely, to be honored and worshiped like God. As such, I suppose his chief complaint concerned the first three commandments. Just a guess, though. What makes sense to you? Know of any inspired statements that speak to the issue? BTW, these are great questions. Thank you.


Most likely. But it may have been expressed this way too:

The law of Jehovah dating back to creation, was comprised in the two great principles, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." These two great principles embrace the first four commandments, showing the duty of man to God, and the last six, showing the duty of man to his fellowman. The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression (ST April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.4}

Nothing was taken from the law; not one of its holy precepts could be improved. And as it has existed from the beginning, so will it continue to exist throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. "Concerning thy testimonies," says the psalmist, "I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever (ST April 15, 1886). {1BC 1104.2}

Ah, this is what you meant! I was wondering too.

I think this is an interesting question. To my way of thinking, the answer is no. It's not that God could have created creatures that could have thrived in sin, but such a thing is not possible. Happiness, joy, peace and prosperity can only be found by living in harmony with God's character. Not because God so dictated, but because these things emanate from God's character.

Right. It would never occur to a loving God to create FMAs who are incapable of living in perfect harmony with His law, or to create them in such a way that they could experience perfect peace and happiness while living in violation of His law.